Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add command to link a different manifest #104

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

visigoth
Copy link
Contributor

@visigoth visigoth commented Feb 3, 2023

Adds pore manifest link <name> to link a named and existing manifest file as the current manifest. One can then pore sync -d to sync to that manifest's revisions. Just a bit nicer than having to manage the symlinks yourself.

@jmgao
Copy link
Owner

jmgao commented Feb 9, 2023

@yoelglus moved us to the latest version of clap using the derive macro interface, and it's not immediately obvious to me how to do this with that interface.

That being said, I think this should probably be in pore init instead, for symmetry with rerunning repo init inside an already existing tree?

@visigoth
Copy link
Contributor Author

personally i always hated that repo shoved this into the init command, since it doesn't feel like an initialization procedure. doing this via repo init always made me wary that i am somehow re-initializing the repository and would need to use all the options i used the first time to set it up in order to have the appropriate behavior.

@yoelglus
Copy link
Contributor

@visigoth - I agree repo init is far from intuitive, but the question is what we are trying to achieve with pore? If I understand correctly, this is mostly about speed. Changing the API will raise the bar to migrate from repo to pore.

@visigoth
Copy link
Contributor Author

visigoth commented Apr 5, 2023

whynotboth?

@yoelglus
Copy link
Contributor

@visigoth - my personal opinion here is that having more than one way to do this can lead to some unintended consequences:

  1. Confusion as to what is "the right way" to do it.
  2. We will have to maintain both moving forward.
  3. Diverting from repo's API will introduce a barrier for people to migrate. If repo becomes faster in the future, I don't see a reason not to deprecate pore. That will be harder for people that got used to these subtle differences.

@yoelglus
Copy link
Contributor

But in general - @jmgao being the maintainer - I wander what you think here 😄 .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants